How Old Is The Earth?

[presonorek]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old,

That settles it. People should have asked you years ago.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old,

That settles it. People should have asked you years ago.

It's common knowledge.

 

[presonorek]

QUOTE="vasuderatorrent, post: 15078952, member: 54755"]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old,

That settles it. People should have asked you years ago.

It's common knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Why would I doubt you? I respect your authority on the matter. We should abolish science and religion. You have all the answers that we need.

 

[whoisit]

We are the only species that create . All others only go by instinct. We are create becasue we were created to do so.

We didn't just slide out of the slime knowing all the things we do.

The thinking part of our brain is not matter. Our conscience is not matter or cells or atoms. This is from something else. An intellegence that no evolutionist or big banger can explain.

Of course their was a big bang even the Bible speaks of it. "The heavens rolled out like a scroll " paraphrasing. And forgot where it is, but google will show you.

 

[IsaacNewton]

QUOTE="vasuderatorrent, post: 15078952, member: 54755"]

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old,

That settles it. People should have asked you years ago.

It's common knowledge.

Why would I doubt you? I respect your authority on the matter. We should abolish science and religion. You have all the answers that we need.

You're a weirdo. Go play.

 

[presonorek]

You're a weirdo. Go play.

All you have to do is believe the person who speaks with authority. Why do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Did you read it in a book or something? You just believed somebody. Right?

That's what I am doing. I'm believing you. You seem confident in what you say. That makes it true.

 

[whoisit]

If yall ever have a real spiritual experiance you will never go back to the no creator theory. And soon you will have one becasue it is happening more often now than before.

I have had many over the last several decades. But they ended for about 20 years now they are coming back. Its not fair that many don't have these experioances to them or those who do. Agnostics will never be beleivers until they are shown proof.

 

[Boss]

It's common knowledge.

It was also once "common knowledge" the Earth was flat.

Just over 60 years ago, it was "common knowledge" the universe was only a billion years old and Earth was several hundred million years old. About 100 years ago, it was "common knowledge" the universe was only a million years old. So "common knowledge" somehow seems to change over time. I surmise this may have something to do with Science continuing to ask questions and explore possibilities as opposed to drawing conclusions and believing in your faith of said conclusions.

Here's a little nut to ponder... The oldest rock ever discovered on planet Earth is carbon dated at 4.25 billion years old. Now, you say, GREAT... that must be PROOF that the planet is likely around 4.25~4.5 billion years old... right? But... not so fast... because further examination reveals the rock was formed under water. So... apparently... 4.25 billion years ago, there was already abundant water on Earth. It's difficult to believe the molten planet that would eventually become Earth would have sufficiently cooled down and gained oceans of water within a mere 250 million years. We know because of our molten nickel-iron core, the entire planet underwent enormous heat that essentially cooked the entire planet so that the heavier iron and nickel formed a core in the center and the lighter materials rose to form the mantle and crust. This is a heating that the sun simply can't explain (it's not hot enough) and we have no clear scientific explanation for it-- but it happened.

 

[whoisit]

I don't trust scientist with too much info. Especially the same ones who have used science to destroy it. Running around slitting atoms and stuff is dangerous . And techtronics has turned us into robots more so than humans, but they do also create good things too.

 

[edthecynic]

Sorry, what you are presenting as "proven fact" is actually hypothetical speculation.

The researchers, whose analysis of the platypus genome was published Thursday in the journal Nature, said it could help explain how mammals, including humans, evolved from reptiles millions of years ago.

The research showed the animal's multifaceted features are reflected in its DNA with a mix of genes that crosses different classifications of animals, said Jenny Graves, an Australian National University genomics expert who co-wrote the paper.

"What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well," she told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Scientists believe all mammals evolved from reptiles, and the animals that became platypuses and those that became humans shared an evolutionary path until about 165 million years ago when the platypus branched off. Unlike other evolving mammals, the platypus retained characteristics of snakes and lizards, including the pain-causing poison that males can use to ward off mating rivals, Graves said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It could help explain.." ...It could also be total nonsense. The genome shares characteristics but humans share 53% of their DNA characteristics with bananas. Finally, the admission that scientists "BELIEVE" these things... not that they are PROVED.

So again, what you and they are doing is parading around Science as "proven fact" to support your beliefs when it's not proven at all. And we see this all the time... A recent study suggests... The results seem to indicate... Scientists believe this explains... These are NOT proven scientific facts at all. It's interesting... but it's also interesting we share 53% of our DNA with a banana.

Of course, I never said "proved," but you can never argue anything without creating a Straw Man.
What is undeniable is the genetics which you avoided with your Straw Man deflection.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's a little nut to ponder...The oldest rock ever discovered on planet Earth is carbon dated at 4.25 billion years old.

Idiot, carbon dating is NEVER used to date rocks, and has a limit of about 5 half-lives of about 5,000 years each.
YOU are the only nut to ponder!

 

[Boss]

Of course, I never said "proved," but you can never argue anything without creating a Straw Man.
What is undeniable is the genetics which you avoided with your Straw Man deflection.
Thank you.

The USA Today article you posted above says "proves" in the title and that was the point of your posting it when I said this had not been proved... are you now conceding this point to me that it has not been proved (as I said)?

 

[Boss]

Idiot, carbon dating is NEVER used to date rocks, and has a limit of about 5 half-lives of about 5,000 years each.
YOU are the only nut to ponder!

Well, whatever method they use to date rocks.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course, I never said "proved," but you can never argue anything without creating a Straw Man.
What is undeniable is the genetics which you avoided with your Straw Man deflection.
Thank you.

The USA Today article you posted above says "proves" in the title and that was the point of your posting it when I said this had not been proved... are you now conceding this point to me that it has not been proved (as I said)?

The article said the GENE MAP "proves" the platypus was part mammal, bird and reptile, which it does. You then took out of context the words "could" and "believe" when the article went on to relate this info to the theory of evolution, that as you well know was your Straw Man.

I was of course attacking your lie that there was no evidence that a platypus was ever a reptile, when there is obviously the undeniable evidence contained in the platypus genome that you deny exists.

There is zero evidence a platypus was ever a reptile.

 

[edthecynic]

Idiot, carbon dating is NEVER used to date rocks, and has a limit of about 5 half-lives of about 5,000 years each.
YOU are the only nut to ponder!

Well, whatever method they use to date rocks.

Well, "whatever method they use to date rocks" has nothing to do with rocks at all let alone their being under water, as you made up out of thin air and then pontificated! I was just pointing out your scientific stupidity with the easiest example in your post. So lets look at the rest of your fabricated stupidity in your post.

Here's a little nut to ponder... The oldest rock ever discovered on planet Earth is carbon dated at 4.25 billion years old. Now, you say, GREAT... that must be PROOF that the planet is likely around 4.25~4.5 billion years old... right? But... not so fast... because further examination reveals the rock was formed under water. So... apparently... 4.25 billion years ago, there was already abundant water on Earth. It's difficult to believe the molten planet that would eventually become Earth would have sufficiently cooled down and gained oceans of water within a mere 250 million years. We know because of our molten nickel-iron core, the entire planet underwent enormous heat that essentially cooked the entire planet so that the heavier iron and nickel formed a core in the center and the lighter materials rose to form the mantle and crust. This is a heating that the sun simply can't explain (it's not hot enough) and we have no clear scientific explanation for it-- but it happened.

Geologic Time: Age of the Earth

AGE OF THE EARTH
So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

snip/

The oldest dated moon rocks, however, have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years and provide a minimum age for the formation of our nearest planetary neighbor. Thousands of meteorites, which are fragments of asteroids that fall to Earth, have been recovered. These primitive objects provide the best ages for the time of formation of the Solar System. There are more than 70 meteorites, of different types, whose ages have been measured using radiometric dating techniques. The results show that the meteorites, and therefore the Solar System, formed between 4.53 and 4.58 billion years ago. The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent.

 

[Boss]

The article said the GENE MAP "proves" the platypus was part mammal, bird and reptile, which it does.

No, it does not "prove" anything. Because it has similarities with other things doesn't prove there is a connection.

You then took out of context the words "could" and "believe" when the article went on to relate this info to the theory of evolution, that as you well know was your Straw Man.

I took nothing out of context. I simply highlighted words which define the statements as speculations and not proven facts.

I was of course attacking your lie that there was no evidence that a platypus was ever a reptile, when there is obviously the undeniable evidence contained in the platypus genome that you deny exists.

It wasn't a lie. The similarity of genes is not evidence of anything other than similar genetics. I suspect the platypus also is comprised of similar material elements found in the periodic table as other forms of matter, that doesn't prove a relationship.

Now we can certainly get into a semantics argument about what is or isn't "evidence" ...there is no evidence we've ever been visited by extraterrestrials but SOME people certainly believe there IS evidence. So what is the "correct" answer... is there evidence because some people THINK there is evidence?

 

[IsaacNewton]

When anyone tries to reduce thousands of Ph.D's and their lifetimes of detailed work and study on one subject to the level of 'because some people think so', you know they they have an agenda other than knowing facts. They need a path to reduce facts to opinion and thus pour all knowledge or lack thereof into a pot and make a stew of 'well everyone just has an opinion'.

Not by a billion light years.

 

[Boss]

Well, "whatever method they use to date rocks" has nothing to do with rocks at all let alone their being under water, as you made up out of thin air and then pontificated! I was just pointing out your scientific stupidity with the easiest example in your post. So lets look at the rest of your fabricated stupidity in your post.

No, I actually saw this on a documentary a while back and I can't recall the specific details. I may be using the incorrect terminology but the oldest rock we've ever discovered on Earth is 4.25 billion years old and was formed under water.
Oldest dated rocks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2008 microprobe research[edit]
The zircons from the Western Australian Jack Hills returned an age of 4.404 billion years, interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons also show another interesting feature; their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth. The importance and accuracy of these interpretations is currently the subject of scientific debate. It may be that the oxygen isotopes, and other compositional features (the rare earth elements), record more recent hydrothermal alteration of the zircons rather than the composition of the magma at the time of their original crystallization.[citation needed] In a paper published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, a team of scientists suggest that rocky continents and liquid water existed at least 4.3 billion years ago and were subjected to heavy weathering by an acrid climate. Using an ion microprobe to analyze isotope ratios of the element lithium in zircons from the Jack Hills in Western Australia, and comparing these chemical fingerprints to lithium compositions in zircons from continental crust and primitive rocks similar to the Earth's mantle, they found evidence that the young planet already had the beginnings of continents, relatively cool temperatures and liquid water by the time the Australian zircons formed.[12]

 

[Boss]

When anyone tries to reduce thousands of Ph.D's and their lifetimes of detailed work and study on one subject to the level of 'because some people think so', you know they they have an agenda other than knowing facts. They need a path to reduce facts to opinion and thus pour all knowledge or lack thereof into a pot and make of stew of 'well everyone just has an opinion'.

Not by a billion light years.

I'm sorry, but just because you've studied something a long time doesn't mean your speculations have scientific explanatory powers. Neither are a few letters behind your name. There aren't any shortcuts like that in science.

I don't have to reduce anything that isn't a fact to make it not be a fact.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

interpreted to be the age of crystallization.

These zircons also show another interesting feature; their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth.

they found evidence that the young planet already had the beginnings of continents, relatively cool temperatures and liquid water by the time the Australian zircons formed

...............

Here's a little nut to ponder... The oldest rock ever discovered on planet Earth is carbon dated at 4.25 billion years old. Now, you say, GREAT... that must be PROOF that the planet is likely around 4.25~4.5 billion years old... right? But... not so fast... because further examination reveals the rock was formed under water.

...............

there was already water on the surface of the Earth - - But... not so fast... because further examination reveals the rock was formed under water.


really, underwater, exaggerate much bossy as the article nowhere indicates the crystallization occurred underwater and why would there not be water present during the conducive period of mineral crystilization ... ?

another example of science and your superior intellect walking hand in hand.

.